Hillary Clinton will run for president. Again.
No inside information informs this prediction. No argument is
advanced as to whether her run is a good or a bad idea—there are many
ways to make a case either way. Instead this is just a statement of
simple facts (if facts mean anything anymore, that is). And the facts
are clear that the former secretary of state is doing everything she
needs to do to run for the White House one more time. If she finds a
path to do so, she will take it. And I can prove it.
Consider. Shortly after Clinton’s shock-the-world, hysteria-inducing
defeat last November, the Clinton Global Initiative announced plans to
cease operations. The CGI—the most scandal-plagued arm of the Clinton
Foundation—was a ground zero of grief for the Clinton campaign. Labeled a
slush fund for political operations, paid for by foreign governments,
it was an endless and easy target of complaints about conflicts of
interest and graft. Yet despite pleas to do so by various supporters
throughout the 2016 campaign, the Clintons time and again refused to
shut it down. Which raises the question: What advantage, other than a
political one, is there to doing so now?
Similarly, why did the Clintons allow rumors to circulate—rumors they
still haven’t officially quashed—that the former secretary of state
was/is/might be considering a run for mayor of New York City? For the
thrill of it? Out of spite toward the current mayor, who supported her
candidacy for the White House? Or might there be another reason to keep
alive the idea that Hillary Clinton’s political fortunes aren’t in the
This month, Clinton signed a book deal with Simon & Schuster. That alone isn’t noteworthy. This, after all, would be her seventh book, if you count her campaign policy venture/insomnia cure, Stronger Together. But added to all the other activities afoot, it raises a few questions. Does she really have that
much more to say? Or might there be another reason, besides money that
she does not need, to go on a book tour, answer humiliating questions
about losing to Donald Trump and stay in the headlines?
And just days ago, Clinton trolled Trump on Twitter over the
courtroom defeat of his executive order banning citizens from seven
majority-Muslim nations. She didn’t have to do that, of course. Most
defeated rivals disappear after their loss. Instead, Clinton sounded
very much like she was still on the campaign trail. (Because, of course,
Finally, consider last November’s concession speech to Trump. Absent
in her remarks was any indication, as one might have expected, that she
was going gentle into that good night, handing the baton to a new
generation or even to a new leader. Instead, Clinton talked more about
the future—explicitly including herself in that future—than she did
about the past.
“I know we have still not shattered that highest and hardest glass
ceiling, but someday, someone will,” she said, adding, “and hopefully
sooner than we might think right now.” She then quoted a line of
Scripture: “Let us not grow weary in doing good, for in due season, we
shall reap if we do not lose heart.” And she concluded, tellingly, with
this: “So my friends, let us have faith in each other, let us not grow
weary, let us not lose heart, for there are more seasons to come. And
there is more work to do.”
This was not Richard Nixon’s bitter “You won’t have Nixon to kick
around anymore” when he lost a race for governor in 1962 and thought his
political career was over. This was someone looking ahead. More seasons
to come.(Continues at POLITICO)
Sunday, February 12, 2017
Wednesday, February 8, 2017
Quoting King technically put Warren in violation of Senate rules for "impugning the motives" of Sessions, though senators have said far worse. And Warren was reading from a letter that was written 10 years before Sessions was even elected to the Senate.Dear Senator Thurmond:I write to express my sincere opposition to the confirmation of Jefferson B. Sessions as a federal district court judge for the Southern District of Alabama. My professional and personal roots in Alabama are deep and lasting. Anyone who has used the power of his office as United States Attorney to intimidate and chill the free exercise of the ballot by citizens should not be elevated to our courts. Mr. Sessions has used the awesome powers of his office in a shabby attempt to intimidate and frighten elderly black voters. For this reprehensible conduct, he should not be rewarded with a federal judgeship.I regret that a long-standing commitment prevents me from appearing in person to testify against this nominee. However, I have attached a copy of my statement opposing Mr. Sessions’ confirmation and I request that my statement as well as this be made a part of the hearing record.I do sincerely urge you to oppose the confirmation of Mr. Sessions.Sincerely,Coretta Scott King
Still, top Senate Republican Mitch McConnell invoked the rules. After a few parliamentary moves, the GOP-controlled Senate voted to back him up.
Now, Warren is forbidden from speaking again on Sessions' nomination. A vote on Sessions is expected Wednesday evening.
Democrats seized on the flap to charge that Republicans were muzzling Warren, sparking liberals to take to Twitter to post the King letter in its entirety.Warren argued: "I'm reading a letter from Coretta Scott King to the Judiciary Committee from 1986 that was admitted into the record. I'm simply reading what she wrote about what the nomination of Jeff Sessions to be a federal court judge meant and what it would mean in history for her." (Continues at Time)